MOHD. SAHIL MOHD. KALIM SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

PRASAD                                             916_BA_3692_2025.DOC




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             BAIL APPLICATION NO.3692 OF 2025

Mohd. Sahil Mohd. Kalim Shaikh                        …. Applicant
      V/s.
State of Maharashtra                                  … Respondent

                          WITH
             BAIL APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 2026

Mohd. Sherali Zaheer Ul Haq@ Jahiruddin               …. Applicant
Shaikh
     V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                              … Respondent


Mr. Ravi Dwivedi a/w Ms. Aishwarya Pandit and Ms. Sakshi
Singh, for the Applicant in BA/3692/2025.
Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani a/w Ms. Mayanka S.R., for the Applicant in
BA/1485/2026.
Mr. Kaushik Mhatre, SPP a/w Sanket Dhawan, for Respondent
No.1 – State.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Ganesh Gaikwad, Dharavi Police Station, present.


                           CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                           DATED : 06th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:-

.        Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
Mr. Bhawnani has submited the synopsis and Mr. Mhatre
submitted written submissions. It is taken on record.

2.       Applicants seek their release on bail in connection with C.R.
No.680 of 2024 registered with Dharavi Police Station, for offence
punishable under Section 103(1), 111(2), 351(2), 352, 115(2), 3(5),
61(B), 189(1), 189(2), 189(4), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 37(A)(1) of Bombay Police Act on


                                   Page 1 of 7
                              th
                            06 August 2026
PRASAD                                            916_BA_3692_2025.DOC




the Report dated 29.07.2024, filed by Shailesh Vaishya, who is
brother of the deceased Arvind Vaishya.

3.       Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 29.07.2024 at
about 06:00 p.m., one Siddhesh Gore, witness in this case, was
riding a motorcycle which hit the father of one JB namely “A”.
However, Siddhesh abused the father of the JB for not paying
attention. At about 06:40 p.m. when Siddhesh was present with
his friend Anil, the JB came there with a knife. At that time,
Siddhesh assaulted the JB with fists. Meanwhile, Niyaz and Aarif
came there and they abused and assaulted Siddhesh with fists. At
that juncture, witness Rakesh intervened and stopped the fight. In
some time, Siddhesh’s father and brother Rushabh came there.
However, Niyaz and Aarif assaulted them. Therefore, deceased
Arvind came there to solve the fight. Therefore, co-accused Aarif
and Niyaz called their friends Applicant-Sherali, Shubham,
Jumman and Kadir who assaulted to the father and brother of
Siddhesh. At that time, police came there. Therefore, all the
accused went away.

         As the prosecution story goes further, at about 09:40 p.m.,
deceased Arvind and Siddhesh along with police were searching
for accused Niyaz and Aarif in connection with aforesaid incident.
Certain witnesses were in police vehicle. Deceased Arvind and
Rajesh were on bike. Suddenly, accused Niyaz came there from a
lane and stabbed Arvind. Co-accused Yasin assaulted the deceased
by means of stick. Aarif was trying to assault Arvind, but police
accosted him. However, co-accused Yasin and Niyaz ran away. The
deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Therefore,
aforesaid crime came to be registered. The Applicant Sherali was
arrested on 30.07.2024. It is alleged that Applicant – Sahil was


                                   Page 2 of 7
                              th
                            06 August 2026
PRASAD                                           916_BA_3692_2025.DOC




absconding and he was arrested on 15.01.2025. Meanwhile, police
recorded statements of witnesses including supplementary
statements of the Informant.

         The investigation revealed that at the time of murder,
Applicant – Sherali was present at the spot and Applicant Sahil
was present along with a motorcycle. In the first statement of
informant under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., it is alleged that
Applicant Sherali was armed with a knife and Applicant Sahil was
on a motorcycle. In the last supplementary statement, the
informant alleged that all the accused persons were trying to
assault the deceased. Thus, according to prosecution the
Applicants were involved in the aforesaid offence as a member of
unlawful assembly. Therefore, both the Applicants were charge-
sheeted alongwith the others.

4.       Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Bhawnani, learned Counsel for the
Applicants submitted that admittedly, both the Applicants were
not assigned any overt act in the assault on the deceased. In the
first statement under Section 180 of the BNSS, the Informant only
stated that Applicant Sherali had a knife and one unknown person
having big lips, i.e., Applicant Sahil was seated on a motorcycle
near the place of the murder. However, in the last supplementary
statement the Informant has improvised his version and alleged
that, all the accused came forward to assault the deceased.
Therefore, the said allegation is not prima facie reliable. The role
assigned to the Applicants by the informant, similar role is
assigned to them by two witnesses, but they were examined after
five months of the incident. The reason of not reaching to the said
two witnesses for inquiry during the first round of investigation, is
not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, whether Applicant


                                 Page 3 of 7
                            th
                          06 August 2026
PRASAD                                           916_BA_3692_2025.DOC




Sherali had knife in his hand, whether Applicant Sahil was present
at the spot and whether both the Applicants had come forward to
assault the deceased, all these are the questions of trial. They
submitted that co-accused Jumman and Kadir, who had identical
role except holding a knife like Applicant Sherali, they have been
granted anticipatory and regular bail. Therefore, on the principle
of parity, both the Applicants deserve bail.

5.       In contrast, Mr. Mhatre, learned SPP, opposed the
application. He vehemently submitted that in the statement under
Section 180 of the BNSS recorded on the same date of the FIR, the
informant has specifically stated that Applicant Sherali was
present at the spot and he was armed with a knife. In the
subsequent statement, he has stated Applicant Sahil was present
on the spot sitting on his motorcycle. All the accused persons had
come forward to assault the deceased. However, they stopped
because police had arrived at the spot. Therefore, even if it is
assumed for the sake of argument that the Applicants had not
actually participated in the assault, their presence on the spot is
sufficient to hold them guilty of the murder on account of sharing
common object of the unlawful assembly, a vicarious liability for
the murder. Therefore, the Applicants are not entitled for bail.

6.       I have considered these submissions. During the course of
arguments both the sides have highlighted the CCTV footage
collected during the course of investigation. There is no dispute
about the contents of the CCTV footage. Mr. Bhawnani, the
learned Counsel submitted that at one point of time, the CCTV
footage shows that all the accused persons were proceeding in one
direction, but, at another point of time, only A1 and A2 were seen
coming back and immediately thereafter the deceased was


                                  Page 4 of 7
                             th
                           06 August 2026
PRASAD                                              916_BA_3692_2025.DOC




assaulted by means of knife. This chronology of the event leading
to the murder is not disputed by Mr. Mhatre.

7.       No doubt, in the statement of the informant it is recorded
that Applicant Sherali was present at the spot holding a knife, but,
Mr. Bhawnani claims that Sherali was not seen in the CCTV
footage holding a knife.

8.       The third aspect is that both the Applicants along with other
accused persons had come forward to attack the deceased.
However, this fact has come on record only after five months of
the incident. No doubt, two witnesses like the informant also
stated the said fact. According to Mr. Mhatre, the said witnesses
were not coming forward to give their statement because of fear
from the accused. However, the informant, who was not under
such a fear, has also took five months time to state the said fact. As
per the postmortem report, the deceased had 13 injuries. But Mr.
Bhawnani stated that only one stab injury was the cause of death
and, it was associated with one laceration and rest were abrasions.

9.       As a result, I am of the view that there is no prima facie case
against the Applicants of having shared the common intention or
common object to the commit the murder. As noted above,
accused Kadir and Jumman are released on bail and till date, their
bail is not cancelled.

10.      In the wake of above, I am inclined to allow the applications.
Hence, following Order :-

         (i)   The Applicants – Mohd. Sahil Mohd. Kalim Shaikh
         and Mohd. Sherali Zaheer Ul Haq@ Jahiruddin Shaikh be
         released on bail in C.R. No.680 of 2024 registered with


                                    Page 5 of 7
                               th
                             06 August 2026
PRASAD                                              916_BA_3692_2025.DOC




         Dharavi Police Station, for offence punishable under
         Sections 103(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
         Sanhita, 2023, on their executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
         Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like
         amount.

         (ii)   The Applicants shall mark their attendance at Dharavi
         Police Station, on 1st and 16th day of each calender month
         between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

         (iii) The Applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings
         before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
         Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

         (iv)   The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
         evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
         the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
         against them.

         (v)    The Applicants shall not indulge in identical activities
         for which they have been arraigned in this case.

         (vi)   On being released from jail, the Applicants shall
         furnish their contact number and residential address to the
         Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
         there is any change.

         (vii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the
         observations made hereinabove are confined for the
         purpose of determination to the entitlement for bail and
         they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on
         the guilt or otherwise of the Applicants and the trial Court


                                     Page 6 of 7
                                th
                             06 August 2026
                                PRASAD                                             916_BA_3692_2025.DOC




                                         shall not be influenced by any of the observations made
                                         hereinabove.

                                11.      Bail Applications stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.



                                                                    (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)



             Digitally signed
             by PRASAD
PRASAD       RAJENDRASING
RAJENDRASING RAJPUT
RAJPUT
             Date: 2026.08.10
             18:37:43 +0530




                                                                   Page 7 of 7
                                                              th
                                                            06 August 2026